About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18
for the rest of his career. that has to do with the memos in the brown v. board of education case. >> guest: right. >> host: tell us what his role of and why it turned out to be controversial. >> guest: well, he actually wrote a number of memos, and they kind of, those memos stumbled out on stage in a very rough sequence over many years later, and they came back to haunt him. what he did -- so he gets there, and percolating up through the courts already, going back to -- back to 1950, are the cases of the naacp, legal and education defense fund, that thurgood marshall is actually bringing, and he's building it sort of brick-by-brick, block-by-block, and thurgood marshall not yet a justice of the supreme court making the case that plessi versus ferguson, defined the case of separate, but equal, defining the case in the naacp, that this can want remain the law of the -- cannot remain the law of the land. it's clear that the case that's going to be a very, very important one for the court, and it's the year that rehnquist is there, is brown versus board of education. it turns out, in fact, to
elizabeth warren a slight edge in this. scott brown, special election, and the presidential turnout, the burden was even heavier on him. he needed to win well over the majority of independents and also about a quarter were 20% of democrats to help with the turnout. i think he's going to fall just short. i think he deserves credit for making this a close race for a republican senator there, his favorability ratings remain high. and i think elizabeth warren should be considered a favorite going into election day. >> another race is the commonwealth of virginia. trying to recapture his old seat. >> they are very well known throughout the state. both are talking about their time as governor. the governor is very well-known and well-liked. i think both parties going into this felt like this is going to be a flip for whoever wins the presidency. when the cells take this lightly i think some people started reaping. i think that alan is running slightly ahead we still think it is very neck and neck. i think it's going to be a very close margin and i think that we will use is very heavy turn
brown. i mean, as moderate a guide and for the previous panel, they were talking about what congress needs to do to work together and where you need moderate republicans. you need moderate democrats but on the republican side, scott brown, probably would have been one of these people who could work across party lines, scott brown loses. linda -- in hawaii and moderate republican. she would have been a strong asset i think for that kind of congress that pulls things together. she was a terrific candidate and ran a great campaign but you know running in a republican in a very democratic state in the precedence home state is particularly her, it just rang up no sale. i would add heather wilson in new mexico was another one like that in so to sort of moderate republicans running in very blue states basically all lost and then look at their counterparts. look at the democratic moderates running in the red states. joe donnelly in indiana. now, sure maybe you want to get some credit to his opponent but you know, but he did manage to when and a blue jersey winning in indiana in a nondemocr
. mr. president, this morning the associated press reported that iraq war contractor kellogg, brown and root has sued the federal government to pay the $85 million in damages k.b.r. owes soldiers sickened because of k.b.r.'s negligence. this case started in 2003 when members of the oregon national guard were assigned to provide security for contractors from k.b.r. in iraq at the karmant ali water treatment facility. these soldiers and others were exposed to dangerous levels of chemicals, including sodium dichromate -- that hexovalient chromium, one of the most carcinogenic chemicals on earth. a group of the exposed soldiers sued k.b.r. based on the evidence indicating k.b.r. managers were aware of the presence of the dangerous chemicals but failed to warn the soldiers working in and around the plant. a jury recently agreed that k.b.r. was negligent and awarded the soldiers $85 million in damages. and more of the affected soldiers also have lawsuits pending so the damage awards, in my view, are likely to increase significantly. however, a recently declassified indemnification provisi
sure we have the votes to do that. >> senator brown of massachusetts yesterday lamented -- [inaudible] >> i'm glad to have a chance to respond to that. i've wanted to do that. i saw during the campaign his plea for bipartisanship. that is a big joke. it's a travesty. he was on of the most partisan people that never served here. he could have saved citizens united katie could've been the 60th but i'm not in many other things. so i don't need a lecture from him on bipartisanship. he should go look in the mirror. [inaudible] >> i want to tell you earlier you should never chew complement just like when you're in school. i wanted to tell you earlier but didn't have a chance. john kerry is my rent. i work so hard for him when he was running for president. i did everything i could to help him and he came very, very close. there's been no better legislature then i served with. he's been out front on issues dealing with climate change, and for structure, development and many other things. i don't know any conversations at the president or anyone in the white house has had within any conversati
under then-governor brown who was known partially for this in the doons bury as governor moon beam. but he got it passed, so every new building in california had to meet energy efficiency standards. it's made california very efficient. these are the kinds of things, and as i said, portman and shaheen have been working on a compromise on this. these are the kinds of things we can do to make ourselves energy independent. my view, look, katrina -- sorry, sandy gave some impetus to dealing with climate change. and i said in new york we're going to pay for climate change one way or the ore. we can pay for it after each natural disaster. we in new york have had 50 -- sorry, we have had three or four hundred-year disasters -- sorry, i'm phrasing it wrong. we have had in the last three or four year, we have had once in 100-year disasters. with irene, with sandy. and so, you know, i think it will give some impetus to deal with climate change, but even if we can't reach compromise on that, there's lots of things in energy that we can reach compromise on, and that would be on the agenda. and
it difficult for them to vote for scott brown and linda lingle and heather wilson. the problems with republicans is that they're based -- that's a very ideologically driven voters, tea party folks, but part of the republican base is more open, friendly, to voting for democrats than the democratic base is for voting for republicans, i believe. i'm sure we could chew this over. let me give you an example. but me give you an example. heidi is a terrific candidate in north olympic terrific candidate and north dakota. mitt romney won north dakota by 20, 21 points. and heidi was able to overcome that. it's true that she won them as the president one north dakota, slightly less than president, that mr. romney one north dakota slightly less than the president one massachusetts. but i think the republican coalition includes kind of a soft swing voter that is inclined to vote republican, but is more willing to vote for democrats. and, jim matheson surviving utah is amazing. amazing. john barrow in georgia, yes, a republican candidate against john darrell was horrendous. when was the last
murphy brown because look how cool it is that women are wearing pantsuits. now women are the majority of the work force. they became the majority, and now it's kind of even, right? but still that's pretty remarkable. you have over the course of, what, 40 years, you know, men's wages kind of steadily stagnating and then declining whereas women's wages are steadily increasing. now, men on average still make more, but you know, if you look at the charts, the trends are very much like this. and then couple that with the types of jobs that are opening up. so, basically, the way it works is women with college degrees enter the work force at greater numbers, and then they open up the kinds of jobs that women used to do for free. >> host: right. >> guest: so that's like childcare and food preparation, you know, service economy, elder care. and you have this booming health care industry, so you see it's like this cascading effect where there opens up more jobs for women, and, you know, and also the end of the manufacturing era. that's the most literal interpretation. >> host: right. >> guest:
've got, the incumbents who lost, the one incumbent we have lost so far, scott brown, in a state that obama won with 60%. and, of course, the two most notable democrats were jon tester and claire mccaskill. we saw the same thing in the senate. >> one thing when you talk about mccaskill and you talk about on donnelly in indiana can a large part of the is republican candidate. since i was a very young reporter, wiseguy, the candidates election is a big important for of the game. i think that if you took the two things, if you went back to last january, if a candidate, election and money, what's going to route the coming election and everyone would say super pacs. they threw so much money at this race and yet at the end democrats and an excellent team of candidates and republicans had a few losers are various reasons, and it showed on election night. that was one big lesson that i took away. it has nothing to do with philosophy, or geography or demography. just how pros can change the view by doing their jobs right. >> like a state like north dakota where heidi heitkamp did an excel
. you were saying, i was on a panel today, this is much more exciting with brian brown who runs the national organization for marriage, and he is desperately spinning, and he talks about the left liberal states but he also talks about how they were outspent this thing. well, they have seen their support shrink. a have seen can be are not going to go away and they learn the lessons. i think they could come back in a very force away, but it seemed their support shrink the they've seen their grassroots support shrink and they've seen their donor base shrink. the mormon church is a play that you did not see in these four campaigns but they were the dominant player in prop eight. also saw a lot of individual donors on the outside. not do this thing. where's on the protocol decide, you saw fair-minded people across the board standing up in both campaigning for these initiatives on our side, and also he can keep and writing big checks, straight allies. jeff was the single largest individual personal contribution to jeff and his wife contributed to put 5 million in the state of washingt
's called a groundwater maybe she. really a green water navy green water maker ethan brown water. green water. that is to say, something that will not be on the open ocean but what isn't just going up the river like they did in vietnam. and it made a lot of sense to fund a ship like that. what happened is that that ship has come to down it the entire shipbuilding program. which doesn't make sense. >> there was a question about how to pay for this. so the question is, is it another something else in the defense department budget? is it and the federal budget? is in the entitlements? and if so, which entitlements would you change? how do you pay for the speakers again if you're talking but increase, number one, and you are talking about money out of the overseas contingency operations account, the ocoa account, number two but and to talk about a story economy, which will allow for buoyancy that get you to 4%, and you also count for efficiencies like cutting civil service, which they recommend what, 100,000, so this isn't even an original idea. they are nonpartisan. we do that, i guarantee
to thank them individually and by name. senators blunt, boozman, brown of massachusetts, chambliss, cochran, collins, crapo, grassley, heller, hutchison, isakson, kirk, lugar, moran, murkowski, rubio, snowe, and wicker, in addition to all of my democratic cosponsors. this is also a bill that has the support of the american cancer society, the pancreatic cancer action network, the lung cancer alliance, and the american association for medical research as well as the american association of medical colleges. what the bill does is asks that the national institutes of health convene and evaluate a discussion about what we call recalcitrant cancers. this actually began as a pancreatic cancer research bill, but it became apparent that there were other cancers we group now in what we call recalcitrant cancers in that they have not responded to treatment in research and they remain cancers for which there has been little progress in survivability. and because they are so deadly and so lethal, we're trying to direct a little bit more attention out of n.i.h. towards research on these cancers. for me,
brown and after they lost their majority in january of the following year, but then, of course, you've got occupy wall street as welcoming out of the wide firmament of america in the fall of 2011. obama sort of keeps them at arm's length for the part, and i think the thinking -- and i hear this a lot, actually, from a lot of progressive activists over the last few weeks and certainly the last few days -- is a wit of, what's that line, lbj, you know, says to various leaders of his day, make me do it, you know? martin luther king and others, go out there and make me do the right thing. i think people are starting to get a sense that obama in this signaling system between the president and the country that is in need, no doubt about it, even after all obama's done, after a new election there's a sense of a new start is make him arise in new ways to the challenge of the moment. and i think that's an interesting moment he's in now in terms of looking back at his first hyundais in 2009 -- hundred days in 2009 thinking clearly with a hard eye about maybe what he might have done and now hav
number. i hope scott brown holds on. but look, it's a cover and i think anybody saw just a few months ago. >> i'd like to make one comment, and i don't mean to just single out one row, one individual, but i've been struck by the fact that some of the super pac ads are not very good. and a just, i'm serious about that. [inaudible] >> but i would think with all the money that those folks, that all these outside groups have, that they could've produced some better ads. i live in northern virginia so i've seen all these ads about the senate race, and i think the ads attacking tim kane at very low production. i do think they are very good looking as but i don't think they're very attractive ads. and i would think you get all that money you have an added that look better on television spent i will say the same for the ads attacking george allen come just in terms of being fair. >> if i were running one of these outside groups i want a nice looking at the eye would want to just put something up for the sake of a summit on air. >> they are not aim for the people industry but they are in for -- [t
of that, senator brown and i had introduced into the defense authorization bill in 2012 provisions to cut through the red tape so you can cut off contracts sooner if our taxpayer dollars were getting in the wrong hands or god forbid to insurgents, which did happen as well. how are those provisions working? what more can we do that? can you give us an update on whether that's been helpful for you? >> senator, first, thank you for your assistance in parting part of the national defense authorization act last year. general mattes who has that authority usedded that authority a great deal over the past year. i understand at least $12 million that otherwise would have gone in the hand of the taliban did not because he had the authority to cancel those contracts because of the association of the contractors with the taliban. i also believe that over the past year, and i did spend quite a bit time on this on the visit they changed the organizational construct, the central command at isaf and afghan government to provide, and, of course, our embassy lead in afghanistan to provide better oversight
, the nation's second highest military officer. he is now the harold brown -- [inaudible] and defense studies at csis. after spending 40 years in the marine corps. today he is playing the national security adviser. a role that comes easy to him. next to him is william -- [inaudible] he's the former u.s. deputy secretary of defense, the number two over at the pentagon, and he served under secretaries robert gates and leon panetta. his job was just this: he managed three million people and a budget of $700 billion. today he is the ceo of drs technologies and another world class cyber expert. beside bill lynn is steven so pinsky, the senior vice president for crowd strike, and he's the former deputy assistant director of the fbi's cyber division. he held the highest ranking position in the fbi's cyber division, and he will be playing, um, the fbi director. so we have general cartwright playing the role of national security adviser, bill lynn is the secretary of defense -- um, this is perfect because it's halloween, so it's kind of even easier to play roles. [laughter] and we have steve to bin sk
that things are the way we said they would be. here's the list. bingaman 2984, brown of ohio 3216, kerry and brown of massachusetts 3034, kohl 2887, lieberman 3167, lieberman 3276, mikulski 3217, nelson of nebraska 3274, pryor 2946, rhode island 3014, reed of rhode island 3255, reid of nevada 3244, reid of nevada 3047, tester 3028 -- that's not the sportsmen's amendment, by the way. there was an objection to it and senator tester was willing to not have that on the list. udall of new mexico 3049, udall of new mexico 3150, akaka 3204, begich 3194, bennet 3226, boxer 3265, brown of ohio 311, carper 3241, casey 2997, conrad 3227, coons 3289, hagan 3056, harkin 3147, johnson of south dakota 3100, kohl 2887, lautenberg 3288, levin 3164, levin 3280, levin 3284, nelson of florida 3267, reed of rhode island 3165, reed of rhode island 3255, rockefeller 2996, warner 3145, warner 3188, webb 2943, webb 2957, whitehouse 3181, wyden 2959, alexander 3258, ayotte 3003, ayotte 3004, ayotte 3080, barrasso 3081, barrasso 3082, blunt 3728, boozman 3 it 21, brown of massachusetts 3160, brown of massachusetts
on the civilian and contractual workforce. my cosponsors include senator akaka, mikulski, begich, brown of ohio, boxer, leahy and tester. i would ask my colleagues to approve the amendment. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: this amendment which was unanimously approved by the committee as a provision and it would review the plan to reduce civilian and contractual personnel by 5%. right now the president's budget request, not counting sequester, would reduce military personnel by 123,900 men and women serving in the military, or 5.5% over five years. since 2001, the civilian personnel and department of defense has increased by 100,000, 16% increase, and a 37% increase in civilian pay costs. the department of defense continues to be top-heavy with headquarters. the office of the secretary will grow by 25% from 2001 to 2017. we all know the department of defense is being downsized so there has to be obviously a commensurate reduction in civilians, which is actually less than what is contemplated in the military. this was unanimously reported, a
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)